scholarly journals Degree of Conversion and Hardness of Two Different Systems of the VitrebondTM Glass Ionomer Cement Light Cured with Blue LED

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 244-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mateus Rodrigues Tonetto ◽  
Marcelo Ferrarezi de Andrade ◽  
Shelon Cristina Souza Pinto ◽  
Alvaro Henrique Borges ◽  
Matheus Coelho Bandéca ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Hardness Test ◽  
Degree Of Conversion ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Blue Led ◽  
Light Curing ◽  
New Formulation ◽  
Storage Times ◽  
Ionomer Cement

ABSTRACT This study investigated the physicochemical properties of the new formulation of the glass ionomer cements through hardness test and degree of conversion by infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). Forty specimens (n = 40) were made in a metallic mold (4 mm diameter x 2 mm thickness) with two resin-modified glass ionomer cements, VitrebondTM and VitrebondTM Plus (3M/ ESPE). Each specimen was light cured with blue LED with power density of 500 mW/cm2 during 30 s. Immediately after light curing, 24h, 48h and 7 days the hardness and degree of conversion was determined. The Vickers hardness was performed by the MMT-3 microhardness tester using load of 50 gm force for 30 seconds. For degree of conversion, the specimens were pulverized, pressed with KBr and analyzed with FT-IR (Nexus 470). The statistical analysis of the data by ANOVA showed that the VitrebondTM and VitrebondTM Plus were no difference significant between the same storage times (p > 0.05). For degree of conversion, the VitrebondTM and VitrebondTM Plus were statistically different in all storage times after light curing. The VitrebondTM showed higher values than VitrebondTM Plus (p < 0.05). The performance of VitrebondTM had greater results for degree of conversion than VitrebondTM Plus. The correlation between hardness and degree of conversion was no evidence in this study. How to cite this article Calixto LR, Tonetto MR, Pinto SCS, Barros ED, Borges AH, Lima FVP, de Andrade MF, Bandéca MC. Degree of Conversion and Hardness of Two Different Systems of the VitrebondTM Glass Ionomer Cement Light Cured with Blue LED. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14(2): 244-249.

scholarly journals Advances in glass-ionomer cements

2006 ◽  
Vol 14 (spe) ◽  
pp. 3-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carel Leon Davidson
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Minimal Invasive ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Restorative Material ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Tooth Structure ◽  
Ionomer Cement

This article describes the properties, advances and shortcomings of glass-ionomer cement as a restorative material. The adhesion of glass-ionomer to tooth structure is less technique sensitive than composite resins and its quality increases with time. Therefore glass-ionomer might turn out to the more reliable restorative material in minimal invasive dentistry based on adhesive techniques.

Reactions in Glass Ionomer Cements

1974 ◽  
Vol 53 (6) ◽  
pp. 1408-1413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Crisp ◽  
Alan D. Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Metal Complex ◽  
Polyacrylic Acid ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Considerable Importance ◽  
Acid Solutions ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Cement Powder ◽  
Ionomer Cement

The initial stages of the reaction between the glass ionomer cement powder and polyacrylic acid solutions (aluminosilicate polyacrylate cement) are described. Polyacrylic acid rapidly decomposes the ion-leachable powder, possibly aided by some metal comPlex-forming function. The amount of fluoride extracted, which is related to its molecular condition in the glass, is of considerable importance.

Surface Hardness Properties of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cements and Polyacid-Modified Composite Resins

2004 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 42-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yusuf Ziya Bayindir ◽  
Mehmet Yildiz
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Water Storage ◽  
Surface Hardness ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Bottom Surface ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Hardness Values ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Abstract In this study the top and bottom surface hardness of two polyacid-modified composite resins (PMCRs), one resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), and one composite resin were evaluated. The affect of water storage on their hardness was also investigated. The study was conducted using four different groups, each having five specimens obtained from fiberglass die molds with a diameter of 5 mm and a height of 2 mm. Measurements were made on the top and bottom surface of each specimen and recorded after 24 hours and again at 60 days. All tested materials showed different hardness values, and the values of top surfaces of the specimens were found to be higher than the bottom surface in all test groups. There was no statistical difference in the Vickers hardness (HV) values when the test specimens were kept in water storage. In conclusion Hytac displayed microhardness values higher than Vitremer and Dyract. We found the order of HV values to be Surfil > Hytac > Dyract > Vitremer, respectively. Vitremer presented the lowest microhardness level and Surfil the highest. Citation Bayindir YZ, Yildiz M. Surface Hardness Properties of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cements and Polyacid-Modified Composite Resins. J Contemp Dent Pract 2004 November;(5)4:042-049.

scholarly journals Compressive strength of glass ionomer cements using different specimen dimensions

2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 204-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
André Mallmann ◽  
Jane Clei Oliveira Ataíde ◽  
Rosa Amoedo ◽  
Paulo Vicente Rocha ◽  
Letícia Borges Jacques
Keyword(s):  
Compressive Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Strength Test ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Universal Testing ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Compressive Strength Test ◽  
Ionomer Cement

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the compressive strength of two glass ionomer cements, a conventional one (Vitro Fil® - DFL) and a resin-modified material (Vitro Fil LC® - DFL), using two test specimen dimensions: One with 6 mm in height and 4 mm in diameter and the other with 12 mm in height and 6 mm in diameter, according to the ISO 7489:1986 specification and the ANSI/ADA Specification No. 66 for Dental Glass Ionomer Cement, respectively. Ten specimens were fabricated with each material and for each size, in a total of 40 specimens. They were stored in distilled water for 24 hours and then subjected to a compressive strength test in a universal testing machine (EMIC), at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The data were statistically analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test (5%). Mean compressive strength values (MPa) were: 54.00 ± 6.6 and 105.10 ± 17.3 for the 12 mm x 6 mm sample using Vitro Fil and Vitro Fil LC, respectively, and 46.00 ± 3.8 and 91.10 ± 8.2 for the 6 mm x 4 mm sample using Vitro Fil and Vitro Fil LC, respectively. The resin-modified glass ionomer cement obtained the best results, irrespective of specimen dimensions. For both glass ionomer materials, the 12 mm x 6 mm matrix led to higher compressive strength results than the 6 mm x 4 mm matrix. A higher variability in results was observed when the glass ionomer cements were used in the larger matrices.

Biocompatibility of various light-curing and one conventional glass-ionomer cement

Biomaterials ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 19 (6) ◽  
pp. 559-564 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Leyhausen ◽  
M. Abtahi ◽  
M. Karbakhsch ◽  
A. Sapotnick ◽  
W. Geurtsen
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Light Curing ◽  
Ionomer Cement

HEMA release and degree of conversion from a resin-modified glass ionomer cement after various delays of light activation

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (5) ◽  
pp. 640-645 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisabeth Dursun ◽  
Jean-François Nguyen ◽  
Mie-Leng Tang ◽  
Jean-Pierre Attal ◽  
Michael Sadoun
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Degree Of Conversion ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Light Activation ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement

scholarly journals Effect of Hydroxyapatite on Surface Roughness of Zirconomer, and Conventional and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomers

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Farahnaz Sharafeddin ◽  
Somaye Bahrani
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Study Groups ◽  
Distilled Water ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Dental Restorative ◽  
One Way Anova ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Objectives: Glass ionomer cements (GICs) are among the most popular dental restorative materials, but their use is limited due to their clinical disadvantages. Many efforts have been made to improve the properties of these materials by adding various fillers. Incorporation of hydroxyapatite (HA) into the GICs is considered to improve the physical properties of restorations, and may prevent treatment failure. This study aimed to evaluate the surface roughness (Ra) of a conventional glass ionomer cement (CGIC), a resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) and a Zirconomer with and without micro-hydroxyapatite (µHA). Materials and Methods: This experimental study was conducted on 6 groups (n=10) including CGIC, CGIC + µHA, RMGI, RMGI + µHA, Zirconomer, and Zirconomer + µHA. A total of 60 disc-shaped samples (6 mm × 2 mm) were prepared in plastic molds and were stored in distilled water for 24 h. After polishing of the specimens, their Ra was measured by a profilometer in micrometers (µm). The data were analyzed using two and one-way ANOVA, Tukey's HSD test, and independent t-test. Results: Incorporation of µHA resulted in statistically significant differences in Ra between the study groups (P<0.05). Following the incorporation of µHA, the Ra significantly decreased in CGIC (P=0.013) and Zirconomer (P=0.003). However, addition of µHA to RMGI resulted in a significant increase in its Ra (P<0.001). Conclusion: Addition of µHA decreased the Ra of Zirconomer and CGIC, and increased the surface roughness of RMGI samples.

Minimizing Dentinal Fluid Flow Associated with Gap Formation

2006 ◽  
Vol 85 (11) ◽  
pp. 1027-1031 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.N. Ratih ◽  
J.E.A. Palamara ◽  
H.H. Messer
Keyword(s):  
Fluid Flow ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Gap Formation ◽  
Bonding Agents ◽  
Dentinal Fluid Flow ◽  
Light Curing ◽  
Ionomer Cement

The relationship between gap formation and outward fluid flow and procedures to minimize both phenomena were investigated in extracted human premolars restored in vitro with MOD composite restorations. We hypothesized that either glass-ionomer cement (GIC) liners or low-shrinkage composite could reduce fluid flow related to gap formation. Two groups restored with bonding agents with either high- or low-shrinkage resin composites, and 2 groups restored by either conventional or light-cured GIC liner plus resin composite were compared (8 teeth/group). Fluid flow was measured with an automated apparatus. Baseline fluid flow was low and unchanged after bonding, but increased sharply (though transiently) after teeth were lined with GIC. Outward flow was significantly greater with conventional than with light-cured GIC. Inward fluid flow occurred during light-curing, followed by extensive, prolonged outward flow after curing. Low-shrinkage composite or GIC liners reduced gap formation and limited outward fluid flow. GIC liners promoted outward fluid flow during their setting reactions. Abbreviations: GIC, glass-ionomer cement; CEJ, cemento-enamel junction; MOD, mesio-occluso-distal; SEM, scanning electron microscopy.

Adhesiveness of Various Glass Ionomer Cements in Cavities Treated with Carisolv

2012 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y Yamada ◽  
Y Masuda ◽  
Y Kimura ◽  
M Hossain ◽  
A Manabe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Permanent Teeth ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Group 4 ◽  
Caries Treatment ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Acceptable Method ◽  
Caries Removal ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the adhesion of glass ionomer cements to dentin and the effect of pretreatment using Carisolv. Study design: Forty extracted permanent teeth with caries were used for this study. All lesions were removed using the Carisolv system and teeth were divided into eight groups. Groups 1 to 4 were filled with three types of conventional glass ionomer cements and a resin modified glass ionomer cement. Group 8 was restored with composite resin. In the remaining three groups (Groups 5 to 7), several pretreatment procedures, including EDTA and dentin primer application and a combination of these, were performed before restoring with resin modified glass ionomer cement. All restorations were thermocycled, and microleakage tests were performed on all teeth. Results: There were no statistical differences among Groups 1, 2 and 3 or between Groups 4 and 8. However, Groups 1 to 3 had higher microleakage levels than Groups 4 and 8. Groups 5 to 7 showed similar leakage levels as Group 4. Conclusion: Pretreatment with EDTA or dentin primer did not improve bonding ability. Combination of caries removal using Carisolv and a resin modified glass ionomer cement restoration without pretreatment seems to be an acceptable method for caries treatment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document